Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, since September 11 the United States and the rest of the world have been curiously watching President Musharraf of Pakistan and the role he has been playing on the war on terrorism. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, he has been cooperative with the United States in our anti-terrorist activities. But unfortunately, Musharraf has shown no dedication to quelling terrorist activities in his own backyard, Pakistan and Kashmir. Musharraf has created a double standard where he fights against terrorism globally, but winks at terrorist activity locally. Mr. Speaker, following the October 1 attack on the Jammu and Kashmir State Assembly and the December 13 attack on the Indian Parliament last year, it was clear that action against Islamic militants needed to take place. At that time, it was reported that President Musharraf outlawed two organizations responsible for terrorism in Kashmir, Jaish e- Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba, in addition to arresting nearly 2,000 men supposedly linked to terrorists. This was done in an effort to crack down on terrorists. The impression was also given by Musharraf that the madrassahs, those schools with training in fundamental Islamic principles which were directly linked to terrorism, would be closed throughout Pakistan. But, Mr. Speaker, this is in fact not the case at all. To begin with, the 2,000 supposed militants rounded up were for the most part arrested for minor crimes. From my understanding, there were two exceptions to this: the arrest of Masood Azar, head of Jaish-e- Muhammad and the arrest of Hafiz Saeed, leader of Lashkar-e-Taiba. At this point, however, Mr. Azar has been demoted to house arrest, Mr. Saeed has been freed, and most of the 2,000 others that have been arrested have been released under the condition that they maintain good behavior. There is no accountability, Mr. Speaker, for terrorist activity in Pakistan or Kashmir. Musharraf is reversing his crackdown on terrorists, and terrorist groups that formerly existed are now rejoining other groups under new names. Mr. Speaker, President Musharraf is cozying up to the United States and its allies under the pretense that he is leading Pakistan in a war against terrorism, while at the same time he is condoning terrorism at home, in Pakistan, as well as in Kashmir. This is not only exemplified by the release of those arrested, but also by the continued operation of the religious schools with curricula that encourage violence. This double standard is unacceptable and should no longer be tolerated by the United States. Mr. Speaker, it is no coincidence that Musharraf has released many of these arrested, including the leaders of terrorist organizations at the same time as the referendum which would continue his dictatorship for 5 more years. Musharraf relies on the militant fundamentalists to maintain his illegal seizure of power as president. He does not have the legitimacy that comes from being elected president by the people of Pakistan. He is required to link his military rule to a fundamentalist religious theocracy in order to justify staying in office. Mr. Speaker, I also believe that peace between India and Pakistan and the negotiated settlement of the Kashmir issue is inevitably linked to a democratic government in Pakistan. Democracies rarely war with each other and are more likely to settle their differences through peaceful means. General Musharraf's actions are moving in the opposite direction. An extension of his military regime will mean more encouragement to terrorism in Kashmir and ultimately I unfortunately think the greater likelihood of war with India.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked the 87th anniversary of the beginning of the Armenian Genocide. On April 24, 1915, 250 Armenian intellectuals and political leaders were arrested and later executed as the rulers of the Ottoman Empire implemented their plan to eradicate their Armenian subjects. This action against the Armenian community's elite marked the beginning of one of the most horrendous events in the history of humankind. Throughout this past week, Armenians have gathered worldwide to remember their martyrs and survivors and to seek universal affirmation of this crime against humanity. On Sunday, I joined hundreds of Armenian-Americans at a commemorative event in Times Square in New York City. From 1915-1923, the Ottoman Empire brutally and systematically attempted to destroy its Armenian population, killing 1.5 million and expelling an additional 500,000 people from their homeland of 3,000 years. This was the first act of Genocide of the 20th century. It is a fact that no amount of revisionist history or blatant denial by the Turkish Government can change. It is our duty to the victims and survivors of the Armenian Genocide not to let denial prevail. Every April 24th, Members of Congress come to the House and Senate floor to give support to the memory of the lives cut short by the Ottoman Empire. We do so to honor the memory of those innocent victims who were set upon for only one reason--they were Armenian. One and a half million men and women, young and old, able bodied or not, were driven from their ancestral homeland and brutally massacred. That number is almost incomprehensible, but let me try to put it in perspective. In the 1990 census, the population of the City of Philadelphia, the fifth largest urban center in the United States, was listed at a little over 1.5 million people. The Ottoman Empire drove the equivalent of the entire population of this city, the birthplace of the United States Constitution, into the deserts to die. As a matter of state policy, the Ottoman Turks marched entire populations of countless Armenian villages into the desert until they died of starvation, disease, exhaustion, or of the tortures and rapes that were a fixture on these death marches. Those who survived this merciless torment suffered inhumanities that no people should have to endure. Some made daring escapes in cover of night, and others were committed to slavery. It was not uncommon for a starved Armenian to be mistaken for dead and hide under the bodies of their friends and family members. There were no proper burials of the dead, no last rites given. If we continue to let Turkey deny that this Genocide of an ancient people took place, those who died will never have the justice they rightly deserve. Two weeks ago, 161 Members of this House of Representatives and I sent a letter to President Bush asking that he fulfill his campaign promise and use the word ``genocide'' in his annual April 24th address. We sent a similar letter to the President last year, but with only 107 signatures. I feel that the 55-member increase in support of this just cause is a barometer of the House of Representatives. Members and their constituents are clearly calling on the President to characterize the Genocide accurately and fully. The President's statement yesterday was a graphic depiction of the crimes against humanity that were perpetrated against the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire from 1915-1923. 1 was disappointed to see that President Bush did not use the word genocide in his address, but he did call on Turkey to recognize their history. He said ``Transcending this venomous pattern requires painful introspection about the past and wise determination to forge a new future based on truth and reconciliation. In this spirit, I look forward to Turkey restoring economic, political, and cultural links with Armenia.'' The message is clear; Turkey must recognize the genocide of its past and accept that Armenia is an integral and necessary sovereign neighbor. It must drop the illegal blockade against Armenia, and establish full and normal diplomatic and economic relations. Reconciliation with its past and normalization of relations with Armenia is the only way for Turkey to step out of the dark shadow of its history of genocide. The entire western world, which Turkey so desires to be a part of, demands it. We have seen a tremendous amount of disregard for the sanctity of human life in the past year. No one could have predicted the terrorist attacks of September 11th, or the profound effect it has had on the American people. 3,000 innocent people perished in the fall of the World Trade Center Towers in New York City. It seems that everyone knew at least one person, directly or not, that lost their lives that day. It would take 5,000 Twin Towers to equal the number that died in the Genocide. The importance of American affirmation of the Armenian Genocide grows every year. There are fewer survivors every April 24th, and their small numbers are dwindling rapidly. As important as remembering those that perished, we must learn the lessons that the loss of their lives gave us. The world stood by during the Genocide, and Adolf Hitler learned the lesson of indifference. In 1939, to quell the voices of discontent amongst his generals on the eve of his invasion of Poland, he said, ``Who after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?'' He destroyed 6 million Jews and millions of others with those eleven cynical words. As we embark on a new century, we must make sure that we have learned the lessons of the humankind's capacity for brutality, and we must combat this with truth about the past, compassion for our common man, and a refusal to let these crimes against humanity be repeated. We must remember and learn from tragic events that befell the Armenians. That is the only way that we can be certain that this horrific event, which almost destroyed one of the oldest cultures on the planet, from happening again.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor this evening to express my opposition to a proposal put forward by INS Commissioner James Ziglar several weeks ago. The Immigration and Naturalization Service proposal would limit foreigners to visiting the United States for only 30 days. The current policy on visitor visas allows a stay in the United States for at least 6 months. Mr. Speaker, this new proposal severely undermines the family structure of U.S. residents who have loved ones living in a foreign country; and on another note, the new proposal severely jeopardizes an important segment of the U.S. economy that depends on foreign tourists. The driving force behind the INS proposal is the attempt to improve our homeland security and to prevent terrorists from entering our country. Although I believe that INS reform is badly needed to better address our homeland security concerns, I am completely convinced that limiting visitor visas to 30 days will do nothing to better protect us from terrorists, and will in fact only place severe, undue burdens on the lawful, decent individuals abroad who come to visit the United States. I would like to expand on exactly who would feel the effects of this proposal. It is the grandmother or grandfather who lives in another country and chooses to come to the United States to spend time with their family that has settled here. Is 30 days enough time to reunite a family? Is 30 days enough time, if thousands of dollars and over 24 hours have been spent traveling to the United States? Is 30 days enough time to spend with a newborn grandchild, or a grandchild getting married? I do not think so. Mr. Speaker, over 70,000 people in the United States have signed a petition against this proposal in the last 10 days or so. Interestingly enough, the INS has not thought so, or has not agreed with this proposal for the past 10 years. In fact, they have suggested the opposite. The INS is arbitrarily changing this law in response to September 11, but the change will be ineffectual in preventing further terrorism. In fact, there are two detrimental effects that I foresee with this proposal. First, if visitors are provided only a 30-day visa, it is likely that upon entrance to the United States, these visitors will apply for a visa extension. This type of extra paperwork is the exact reason why the INS extended the visitor's visa to 6 months, so tourists could accomplish the purpose of their visit, leave the United States within the given time here, and not further overload the INS. This will not be the case if the 30-day limit is implemented. Mr. Speaker, the second reason, I think, which is so important, is that we are all aware of the impact on the tourism industry in the United States after September 11. The airline industry and tourism industry would be drastically affected by the decrease in visits to the United States that would be a result of visitors finding that 30 days is not worth the great effort required to visit the United States. Mr. Speaker, I know that the INS has thought about this, but I think they need to reconsider. I urge the INS to reconsider their proposal. It will in no way fight terrorism, and only serves to trample on the legitimate visits from relatives with legitimate residents of the United States.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise today to honor a man who has spent more than 35 years fighting for the rights and representing the interests of working men and women in Central New Jersey. Recently, Thomas V. Dooley retired as President of the Middlesex County Central Labor Council and from the Paper, Allied Industrial, Chemical and Energy Worker International Union. Mr. Dooley has spent the better part of his life in service to the labor movement and his community. Throughout his career he has served as International Representative, President, Vice President, and Legislative Coordinator to various Labor organizations. Active in numerous charitable organizations, Mr. Dooley is a member of the Board of Directors of New Brunswick Tomorrow, the Vice President of the David B. Crabiel Scholarship Foundations, and the Assistant Treasurer of the Middlesex County Board of Social Services. He has also been actively involved with the Middlesex County Heart Association, Middlesex County Open Space and Recreation Advisory Board, the United Way, and various religious organizations including the Diocese of Metuchen and St. Peter's Parish. Mr. Dooley has also been very active in the Irish American community as a member of the Friendly Sons of the Shillelagh of the Jersey Shore, Friendly Sons of St. Patrick of Central New Jersey, and the Ocean County Emerald Society. Just this year the Ancient Order of Hibernians in America named him Irishman of the Year. With Thomas Dooley's retirement, the Middlesex County Central Labor Council and PACEIU will be losing a worker, a family man, and a leader in the labor community. I want to offer my congratulations and thanks for his outstanding years of service. His hard work and dedication to the labor movement and his community will be sorely missed.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I would like to address during my 5 minutes the Armenian genocide. Today, of course, is April 24. The Armenian genocide began over 85 years ago, on April 24 in 1915. Why are we here? Why am I? The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), who is the cochair of the Armenian Caucus, is with me who has been a champion over the years of trying to bring an Armenian genocide recognition resolution to the floor of the House and to the Congress so that we finally would pass it. We are here because we feel very strongly that the Armenian genocide has not been properly recognized in the U.S. House, in this Congress and also by the President. There is no need, I guess, to go into the reasons. We all know the reasons. And they are that the Turkish Government is very strenuous in its opposition and constantly exerts pressure on the President, on the Congress, on the leadership of the Houses not to bring a resolution up that would recognize the genocide. I have maintained for years that that is a huge mistake on the part of the Turkish Government to use that kind of leverage against our Government, in part because the fact of the matter is the genocide occurred and it is a huge mistake to try to cover it up. We know that if genocide occurs and it is covered up, it will occur again. History tells us that. But beyond that, it is also a mistake because until the time comes when the Turkish Government is willing to recognize the genocide, there never will be what I call the cleansing effect that Turkey needs to go through with its leaders and with its population to make sure that they recognize this horrible series of events, and they do not have the events reoccur, that they do not continue to persecute minorities, including the Armenian minority that still exists in a very minimum amount in the state of Turkey today. What we have done this year is the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and I within the Armenian Caucus have circulated a letter asking President Bush tomorrow to use the word ``genocide'' and recognize the genocide in his address that he and other Presidents have done now for many years. President Bush to his credit has been a friend of Armenia and a friend of U.S.-Armenia relations and the two countries growing closer together. During his campaign, he repeatedly made statements about the Armenian genocide and used the term ``genocide.'' Unfortunately, like his predecessors, both Democrat and Republican, once they took office we do not see the word ``genocide'' used. We do ask the President, we do call upon him tomorrow when he commemorates and when he issues a statement about the Armenian genocide, to use the term ``genocide'' because, in fact, it was a purposeful, intentional State act that occurred in 1915. It was not a coincidence. It was not a mishap. It was not a civil war. It was an intentional act on the part of the then Turkish Government to perpetrate a genocide against the Armenian people. We have, I believe, 163 cosponsors of that letter to the President. We have another 5 or 10 Members on a bipartisan basis who sent similar letters on their own, individually, to the President asking that he do so, and I hope sincerely that he does tomorrow. Let me say this, though. The issue of the genocide is important not only because of the past and because we do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past, but also because the actions of the Turkish Government today continue to perpetrate the genocide. As I mentioned, there are not that many Armenians who are now living in Turkey, but there are a few thousand, and those people that live there today continue to be discriminated against. The Turkish Government makes it very difficult for them to practice their Christian Armenian orthodox religion. There are limitations on their ability to open Armenian schools and teach the Armenian language and Armenian culture. They still face problems in terms of owning property, and their inability to own property or to buy and sell property. One of the most egregious examples of this took place just in the last few months when two Armenian Americans, American citizens, were encouraged by the Turkish Government to purchase a hotel for tourism purposes in Van, which is the area where many Armenians historically lived. This couple, after they had opened the hotel and purchased the hotel, were basically told to get out. They were told that they would not be reimbursed for this hotel and for their property. They have not been able to operate the hotel. They have not been able to essentially do anything with their business. They have lost their business, they have lost their investment, because the Turkish Government found out that they were of Armenian dissent. Myself and others within our Caucus have sent a letter to the U.S. Ambassador objecting to this. I want to conclude now, Mr. Speaker, but I just want to say that the genocide continues and the perpetrators of the genocide continue to make it difficult, even for Armenians who live in Turkey, to continue to operate as legitimate citizens.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. I am sorry. I tried not to use the term Senate, but I will not characterize their action. The point I am trying to make is that even though, I think, we do not have to worry about drilling in the Arctic anymore as an issue, the bottom line is that the Republican leadership in both Houses, as well as the President, continue to push for drilling and exploration as the major priority rather than energy efficiency, conservation, and use of renewable resources. Let me give you, if I can, if I can just talk a little bit about some of these Republican energy policies and highlight them a little bit in the time that I have. The President's energy plan encourages increased domestic oil production, as I said, whether that means using new technology to enhance oil and gas recovery from existing wells, modifying Federal land use plans that currently restrict energy development; and the plan also calls for more natural gas pipelines and for streamlining the permit process to build more refineries. In addition to exploration in the Arctic refuge, they also suggest that this increased production is somehow going to correct other States' electricity problems. But I have to say, Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is even if we try, and we should try to increase domestic production overall in the United States, it is never going to provide the kind of demand that we are used to on an exponential level. We cannot assume that we will be able to continue to grow and use more and more energy resources. We have to come up with a way of refining that policy or defining that policy so it is more efficient and does not waste energy resources. Let me talk about renewables for a minute because I think it is important to stress that when it comes to energy resources that it is possible to use resources other than fossil fuels, nonrenewables. Over the last 10, 20 years regardless of who was President, we continued a policy of trying to look for renewables in a way of coming up with energy resources, new types of energy resources. The President says in his plan, in his energy plan, that he wants an increased focus on renewable and alternative energies; but once again when we look at the budget and where the money is going and what is proposed for the budget, we see that those programs have been downgraded. They have not been prioritized. In many cases they have actually been cut. In the President's 2002 budget proposal, it cuts Department of Energy funding for renewable and alternative energy sources by 37 percent; solar research funding is cut by nearly 54 percent; geothermal, hydrogen and wind research programs were cut by 48 percent. Funding to encourage the building of energy-efficient homes and offices and to reduce energy use at steel, glass, pulp and paper companies would also be reduced under the proposal. Basically, what we are seeing, as I said, again, is a budget policy and an agency policy on behalf of the Bush administration that seeks to enhance the power of industry and the needs and the lobbying efforts, if you will, of the utility companies. I guess the best example of that in my opinion was when the President reversed his campaign promise with regard to carbon dioxide. The President's energy plan proposes requiring electric utilities to reduce emissions and improve air quality. And he talks about this multi-pollutant strategy to encourage a development of legislation that would establish mandatory reduction targets for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury. Because of pressure from industry and anti-environmental leaders in the Congress and Republican leadership, the President earlier this year reneged on a campaign promise to include the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions in this plan. Obviously, the environmental community and myself and most Democrats feel very strongly that carbon dioxide emissions have to be included if we are really going to get a handle on trying to fix the air pollution problem that we have. The last thing I wanted to mention in this regard with regard to the national energy policy is a very important point I think; and that is, that under the Clean Air Act, when it was passed and with subsequent amendments, standards were put in place for any new power plants that are built, that they have to meet certain standards with regard to air emissions, but the plants that were built when the Clean Air Act came into effect are what we call grandfathered. In other words, they do not have to upgrade the plant to meet the air quality standards or air emission standards that exist for new plants. When that happened back in the seventies and when the Clean Air Act was first passed, and again, that was under President Nixon, a Republican, it was anticipated that over the years, those old power plants would close and they would be replaced by new power plants that have the stricter standards. But what has been happening instead is that the older power plants continue to operate and, in fact, have expanded and used the grandfathering under the rubric of grandfathering to continue to go by the old standards that caused more air pollution. What President Bush did or is proposing to do is to take aim at this so-called new source review. That is how we characterize the requirement, that for new power plants they have to adhere to stricter standards, and if just going by one of the environmental groups', National Resources Defense Council, quote that says, the Bush energy plan appears to invite all utility and coal industries, the Department of Energy and other agencies, to weaken Clean Air Act rules and interfere with pending enforcement cases. What happened is that previously the EPA had actually sued some of the utilities that owned these older power plants and said that they were violating the law by expanding those older plants and letting them use the older pollution standards rather than build new power plants that would adhere to the stricter standards, and the EPA brought this suit, was very successful and, in many cases, were at the point where they were going to force some of the utilities to adhere to the new standards rather than expanding the older plants under the old standards. Now the Bush administration has essentially said that they are going to step in and not require that these upgrades take place. So, once again, it is just another example of how this administration is taking a very anti-environmental position. After over 30 years of continual upgrading of the environment and environmental laws, now we are seeing the Federal Government go in the opposite direction. There are two other areas, Mr. Speaker, that I wanted to talk about in this regard. I actually only have one other area that I wanted to talk about in this regard, and again, I take this back to my home State because this is such an important issue in New Jersey, and it is just as important really in the rest of the country and, that is, hazardous waste sites. We have, as I think many of us know, again dating back to the seventies, we put in place on a national level a program called the Superfund, which essentially requires that the Federal Government identify the most severely polluted hazardous waste sites in the country, the ones that pose the greatest threat to the environment, and once they are identified and put on what we call the national priority list, that the Federal Government is obliged to go in and clean them up. And they work with the States in doing that. The basic premise of the Superfund program is the concept of what we call polluter pays. In other words, that the company that caused the hazardous site to occur, the company that caused the hazardous waste to be produced and left on a particular site is the one that has to pay the cost to clean it up. The problem, though, is, as anybody who is familiar with corporate law knows, is that corporations, and therefore the polluters that caused this pollution or these hazardous waste sites, often will go bankrupt, will go out of business, or we cannot find them. So even though the Federal Government and the EPA pursuant to the Superfund program goes out and identifies the Superfund sites and then finds out who the responsible party was that caused the pollution, oftentimes, usually in about a third of the cases, the corporation no longer exists or does not have any money, and they cannot go after them and force them to do the cleanup. What they did, and this was basically what the Superfund law was all about from a financial point of view, was that when the Superfund law was set up, Congress established a tax primarily on the oil and chemical industry that is paid into a fund called the Superfund, hence the name, and that that money is then used to clean up those sites where we cannot find the polluter, the responsible party. What happened, though, is that the Superfund program was moving along, and frankly, at the time when President Clinton took office and the 8 years that he was President, they accelerated the level of the cleanup at a lot of sites in the country so that now the majority of the Superfund sites are in some stage of cleanup, and many of them are actually completely done and totally remediated, as we said. When the Republicans took the majority back in the House of Representatives, I guess 7 or so years ago, and Newt Gingrich became the Speaker at the time, the first thing or one of the first things that the Republican leadership did was to refuse to renew the authority for the Superfund tax. And so we have been going now for 7 years without that tax on the oil and chemical industry being renewed. There was enough money carried over over those last 7 years or so that we have been able to continue to clean up a lot of these sites using the money left over from this Superfund tax, as well as providing some money through the budget from what we call general revenues. This is the money that the average American pays in their income tax primarily, or other taxes, to the Federal Government that has been used to make up for the fact that we do not have this Superfund tax in place. The problem is that this budget year will be the last fiscal year when there is significant money left in the Superfund program generated by that tax on the oil and chemical industry. In the next fiscal year, even the President estimates there will only be about $28 million left in the Superfund to do these cleanups. Twenty-eight million dollars is woefully inadequate. I think the level of funding that we need on an annual basis is in the hundreds of millions. So what do we do? Democrats have been saying since 1994, when the Republican leadership took over in the House, that it was wrong to abolish or not renew this tax on the oil and chemical industry because the consequences eventually would be that we would not have money to pay for hazardous waste cleanups, and also that the burden now would be shifted to the average American taxpayer to pay for this cleanup, rather than having it paid for by the companies of industry that primarily caused it. Now we are faced with a crisis where in the next year or so we will not have any money coming from this tax because there is nothing left. We have been advocating as Democrats, I have been advocating as the ranking member on our Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials of the Committee on Energy and Commerce that we should simply renew the Superfund tax. It makes sense. That was the whole idea from the beginning, that the polluter pay, or if we cannot find the polluter, that the industry pay. Again, so far as the Bush administration, President Bush has said he does not favor reimposing that tax. The Republican leadership in the House has said that they oppose it, and we are at a standstill and do not know what to do. The President's budget this year calls for only about 40 Superfund sites to be cleaned up as opposed to the approximately 80 that have been cleaned up on the average, over the last 8 or 9 years. So we know that the program is already suffering because the number of sites to be cleaned up is half, and many of the States even in my own State of New Jersey and around the country, many of the States have been told that the money is not going to be forthcoming from the Federal Government to do the Superfund cleanup, even though those sites are ready and have a plan in place to do the cleanup. In my home State, in my home district, in my congressional district, both in Edison, New Jersey, where we have a site called the chemical insecticide site, which basically produced Agent Orange during the Vietnam War, and a lot of the residue is still there on the site, they are ready to go with the remediation plan they have been working on for the last 20 years. And they have been told, no, they cannot start it, we do not have any money from the Federal Government. There, again, the company that caused the problem went bankrupt, cannot be found, and so we cannot go after the polluter, and there is no money from the Federal Government. Another site in Marlboro Township, again these sites are some of the most polluted Superfund sites in this country. This one is called Burnt Fly Bog. It was run by Imperial Oil Company, has all kinds of petroleum residue percolating from underground. That had experienced about 80 percent cleanup over the last 9 years, and they were supposed to do the last 20 percent starting now in the next few weeks, next few months. They were told by the EPA, we do not have the money to do it. Here again what we are seeing, and maybe the Superfund program is the best example for me to use in the context of what I am trying to get across tonight, is that whether by regulatory action of the agencies or proposals to come to Congress or budgetary efforts to cut back on the amount of money that is available for cleanup or for enforcement, we have seen a concerted effort on the part of this administration of President Bush to try to cut back on environmental protections. It is very unfortunate that on the anniversary of Earth Day, which was yesterday, we saw the President going around the country talking about Earth Day, but his actions and the actions of the Republican leadership in this House do not dovetail with real environmental protection. In fact, the opposite is happening, and they continue to work to downgrade the environment and not provide the funding and the apportionment that is necessary to adequately carry out the good environmental laws that are on the books. I am not going to keep going, Mr. Speaker. I could use a lot of other examples. But I did want to come here tonight to stress what is going on, and I think that hopefully the American people and my colleagues will wake up and realize that this degradation of the environment cannot continue and that the historical commitment that this Congress and that previous Presidents, both Democrat and Republican, have been making on a bipartisan basis to try to improve the quality of our environment should continue and should not be allowed to reverse itself as we have seen in the last year or 18 months into this administration.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, tonight, although I know it is the day after Earth Day, I want to concentrate my remarks on the environment. The gist of my statements tonight are basically to point out the contrast between the Democrats and the Republicans on environmental protection issues. Mr. Speaker, I have been very concerned over the last year or the last 18 months that the new administration, President Bush's administration, both in terms of actions in Congress with the Republican leadership or in agency actions as part of his administration, has done a great deal of damage to the environment, and has basically used the presidency and the power of agencies to break down a lot of environmental protection, not provide the type of enforcement action or the budgetary action that is necessary to protect the environment. Much of this has been linked to special interests, to corporate interests, and to concerns that big business has about environmental protection, environmental regulation. Very little concern has been focused on the impact of these changes in environmental protection on the average American. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats are committed to preserving America's air, water, and pristine lands for future generations, and are fighting to make sure that environmental protection and public health are not sacrificed to the corporate special interests. I have been concerned, Mr. Speaker, to see both the President and the Republican leadership in the Congress not handling in a responsible way what needs to be done to protect our air, water, and land from the polluters, and forcing taxpayers to pay for the cleanup of many pollution problems, such as hazardous wastes or Superfund sites, instead of having the brunt of the cost paid for by the polluters themselves, the corporations and other responsible parties. So in the aftermath of Earth Day, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to basically outline in some detail this evening some of the concerns I have about what has been happening under President Bush, and also with the Republican leadership that has a majority here in the House of Representatives. I thought that I would start by detailing a few areas where I think the actions of this administration and the Republican leadership in the Congress have been particularly egregious. I wanted to start by talking about wetlands protection, because I represent a district, a large part of which is along the coast of New Jersey, along the Sandy Hook and Raritan Bay. We have traditionally in New Jersey had a lot of wetlands, a lot of which has been destroyed. But we are trying very hard to make sure that what we have left continues to be protected. Wetlands provide us, and I think many of us know, crucial habitat for fish and wildlife, and protect our homes from floods by soaking up water from storms and releasing it slowly over time. America has lost about 50 percent of the wetlands that it started out with, and I do not think that we can afford to let anymore of it be destroyed, Mr. Speaker. Yet, the Bush administration dramatically increased the ability of developers to develop the remaining wetlands, essentially losing those wetlands forever. On January 14 of this year, 2002, the Bush administration undermined a balanced Army Corps of Engineers regulation protecting wetlands, which has opened the floodgates for building by developers. The EPA opposed a Corps of Engineers plan to allow more development permits, but the White House sided with the industries, with the corporate interests. This action resulted in increased wetlands development and the ability for developers to more easily qualify for development permits. The Army Corps loosened the permit standards for this program, making it easier for developers and mining companies to destroy more streams and wetlands. Keep in mind that 50 percent of the wetlands in the country have already been destroyed, so now we are just accelerating the pace. For more than a decade, the cornerstone of the United States' approach to wetlands protection has been a policy that calls for no net loss of wetlands. This is a policy, I might add, that originated with the first Bush administration. I want to stress tonight that when I talk and criticize this administration and the Republican leadership in this House for doing things contrary to the environmental interest, I am not suggesting that historically the Republican Party or Republican Presidents have taken that view. In fact, it is just the opposite. We know about Theodore Roosevelt, a great conservationist. Most of the environmental protection laws that we have on the books date from the 1970s, when Richard Nixon was the President. Even the first President Bush did a lot to protect the environment. But I see a concerted policy now with this President and the Republican leadership in this House to turn that around. With no notice or opportunity for comment, the U.S. Army's Corps of Engineers moved to reverse the long-standing policy of no net loss of wetlands by issuing a new guidance dramatically weakening standards for wetlands mitigation. The new standards allowed wetlands to be traded off for dry upland areas, and will likely mean the loss of thousands of acres of wetlands annually. So instead of having to mitigate, when they develop, the loss of wetlands in the area, they are able to basically trade some other area in a different place, far away from the development. The consequence is that we continue to have a greater loss of wetlands. The reversal of this no net loss policy on the part of the Bush administration is just one component, as I said, of a broader Bush administration effort to diminish wetlands protection. Next, I want to talk a little bit, Mr. Speaker, about clean water. This is particularly close to my heart because, as I said, my district is mostly along the Atlantic Ocean, along the Raritan and Sandy Hook Bays, and along the Raritan River. Clean water is a major issue for New Jersey in general, as well as my district, because historically, we have suffered in my State from degradation of water quality. One of the biggest problems we have had historically in New Jersey, and this is true around the country, is a problem with sewage and how to make sure that sewage is properly treated, and that we do not have raw sewage or partially-treated sewage go into our waters, into our rivers, into our harbors, into our ocean. Sewage containing bacteria, fecal matter, and other waste is responsible each year for beach closures, fish kills, shellfish bed closures, and human respiratory illnesses. So understand, when I talk about the concern for clean water, it is not just because of human health, though that is the highest priority, but it is also because of the economic losses, the jobs that are lost because we have to close beaches, because people cannot use recreation areas. According to the EPA, there were 40,000 discharges of untreated sewage into waterways in the year 2000. Before the current Bush administration took office, the EPA issued long overdue rules minimizing raw sewage discharges into waterways, and requiring public notification of any sewage overflows into our rivers and harbors. The proposed rules were blocked. In other words, these rules that were going into effect to try to minimize the raw sewage discharge and the overflow, these rules were blocked by the regulatory freeze that was ordered by President Bush when he first took office in January, 2001. Now, President Bush said then, as he did in many of these situations where he froze regulations that were about to go into place that were protective of the environment, he said at the time, in essence, ``Don't worry about it because I am going to review these in a short time, and I will come back and maybe continue the regulations, these good regulations, or come up with better ones.'' Well, the fact of the matter is that it is well over a year later and the Bush administration still has not issued the sewage overflow safeguards. So the promise about coming up with a new system that maybe would make it better simply has not materialized. Meanwhile, sewage continues to flow into our waters around the country, and the Americans are still denied even rudimentary public notice of such contaminating in the waters where they swim and fish. Part of the regulatory scheme provided for notice about sewage contamination, and that also was taken away when the President essentially froze or took away the new regulations that were taken into place. But when you talk about clean water, it is not just these regulations with regards to sewage overflows and raw sewage that have been negatively impacted. There are a number of other clean water programs that have been slashed because of budgetary cuts that have been put into place or suggested for the next year by President Bush, and also by the fact that there have been cutbacks in the people and the number of people that do enforcement to go out and survey and make sure that environmental laws are not being violated. I mean, if we have a law that is on the books; but you do not have the money or the people to go out and find the violators, then in effect we have no law because people may just not voluntarily abide by it. So I wanted to mention three programs that I consider very important that fall under the clean water rubric that have been slashed or are suffering because of lack of funds or enforcement. The first is the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Many people do not realize it, but when a new sewage treatment plant is built or upgraded or a new reservoir is constructed or upgraded to make sure that the drinking water is safe, a lot of money comes from the Federal Government. There is a Clean Water State Revolving Fund that the Federal Government basically puts money into for the States and the local municipalities or utilities to build or upgrade these sewage treatment or drinking water facilities. That is where the biggest cut took place in the President's budget, in the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. This program provides loans to modernize and upgrade aging sewage and water treatment systems, and it is cut by $138 million in the President's proposed budget. The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund is similar. I was talking about the sewage treatment upgrading fund when I talked about the $138 million cut. But we see the same problem with this Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, which deals with the drinking water upgrades. In fact, I think many people remember that the Bush administration reversed a previous executive order under President Clinton that increased the level of arsenic in drinking water to be deemed safe by the EPA after intense pressure by Democrats and moderate Republicans. Now they put in place better arsenic standards. I think it is ten parts per billion so they are back to what President Clinton had initially put in place. But we did have the lag time when in fact it was not the stricter safe drinking water standards for arsenic. But regardless of that, the bottom line is we need more funding to upgrade our drinking water; and that money has not been made available. The third thing I would like to mention is what I call the ``beaches act'' and what I am very proud of because I was the Democrat in the House that sponsored the bill along with a Republican colleague on a bipartisan basis. This was modeled after the State of New Jersey where we started a program a few years ago after we had massive beach closings in the late 1980's and we lost billions of dollars in our tourism industry because we had to keep our beaches closed for almost one entire summer. We put in place a system on a State level in New Jersey that would require that each town that has bathing beaches, as well as any State or private bathing beach as well, would have to test on a regular basis the water quality; and if the water quality did not meet a certain standard, then the beach would have to be closed, and there would have to be public notice as well as posting of the fact that you could not use the beach. Well, I tried to take this bill and one of my predecessors in Congress, Bill Hughes, also sponsored it, and we worked with some Republicans and passed this bill and finally got it signed into law in the last year of President Clinton's time in office, that would implement this type of program nationwide. Well, 2 years ago, as I said, this bill was passed, passed the House, passed the Senate, went to the President and was signed into law by President Clinton; but that bill provided $30 million a year in Federal grants to help coastal States protect their beaches through water quality monitoring and public notification, as I mentioned. The administration's budget cuts $20 million out of this program. You are not going to be able to implement it with only $10 million as opposed to the $30 million. So I could go on and on about the clean water issues, but I would rather move on to some other issues. I am very much concerned about the clean water issues because of the nature of my district, but there are many other areas where this administration and the Republican leadership have cut back on environmental protection. I would like to mention some of those as well before I finish tonight. The third area I wanted to mention is clean air, obviously important to you no matter where you live in the United States. The Republicans, again, the Republican leadership, the President, and I do not mean to suggest that all Republicans support this but certainly the leadership does and they are basically deciding what bills are posted here and the President is deciding what agency actions are taken. Basically, as I said, the President and the Republican leadership have undertaken a very deliberate effort, in my opinion, to undermine the bipartisan clean air act that has been on the books now since the 1970's, one of the bills that was started, one of the statutes that was put on the books when President Nixon was in office. Again, a lot of this breakdown or effort to downgrade and change in a very dangerous way the clean air act is linked to energy policies of the utilities in the energy industry. And, of course, we know that the President is very close to the oil industry. In fact, the top administration EPA official in charge of enforcing air pollution regulation for coal power plants, and coal power plants are a major source of air pollution, he was so tired of fighting the White House that he decided to resign I guess just a few weeks ago or about a month ago. And in his letter of resignation he said he was tired of ``fighting a White House that seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to enforce.'' That is from the New York Times last month, in March of this year. The President issued with a lot of fanfare in this past February a new clear skies initiative. And this was his answer, I guess, to clean air and it met a lot of cheers in the big industry lobbyists that have been contributing to the Republican campaign coffers. But this clear skies initiative if passed into law will increase the amount of smog, soot, carbon dioxide, and toxic mercury emitted by power plants, by the smoke stacks, if you will, emissions by power plants and would roll back substantially the clean air standards found in the clean air act. The plan essentially provides no limits at all on carbon dioxide emissions, the prime culprit in global warming. I wanted to spend a little time, if I could, on the national energy policy because I know that it is so important to the average American; and of course, our energy policy has been highlighted a great deal in the aftermath of September 11 and the conflict in the Mid East because of the concern that maybe oil supplies would be cut off and what would the United States do in those circumstances. And the national energy policy that has been proposed by the President and the Republicans differs dramatically from the national energy policy for the future that has been proposed by the Democrats. The Republican leadership and President Bush continue to emphasize more production, more drilling. Democrats have talked about the need to address energy efficiency, renewable resources. And Democrats have been very much in favor of more production; but they want to couple that with more domestic production, I should say, of oil and natural gas and coal; but we want to couple that with energy efficiency, conservation programs, use of renewable resources because we realize that we cannot forever depend on fossil non-renewable fuels, and that we cannot assume that we will be able to consume the great amount of energy resources that we have been consuming and having that increase on a regular basis. Well, anyway, if I could talk a little bit, I would like to this evening, Mr. Speaker, about the President's national energy policy and this will fold in again the clean air issue that I mentioned briefly before. As I said, the Bush national energy policy, the President's national energy policy, seeks to primarily spur exploration and production of domestic oil and gas and increase the use of coal and nuclear power. In fact, the White House plan calls for the construction of more than 1,000 new power plants over the next 20 years and of course includes the drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other environmentally-sensitive areas. Now, thankfully, we all know that last week the other body killed the drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, so it does not seem that we will have to deal with that. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Congressional Native American Caucus, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2085, the Valley of Chiefs Native American Sacred Site Preservation Act, which would safeguard an area very sacred to a number of Indian tribes, and ask that my colleagues support this bill as well. In addition, I want to comment on the need to protect other threatened American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) sacred lands. Our many democratic forums establish an opportunity for discussions to take place to better understand the social, economic, legal, and political complexity of AI/AN realities, before related legislation is brought to the House floor for a vote. As congressional history demonstrates, the decisions to make as Representatives can either positively or negatively impact AI/AN people, and their nations, tribes, bands, villages, and communities. For example, between 1887 and 1934, the U.S. Government took over 90 million acres of land from American Indians without compensation-- including sacred lands. More recently, between 1945 and 1968, Congress decided that Federal recognition and assistance to more than 100 tribes should be terminated. This termination policy created economic disaster for many American Indians, and their nations, resulting in millions of acres of valuable natural resource land being lost through tax forfeiture sales. This is a primary reason why AI/AN families have the biggest poverty level of any group in the country, at a rate of 31 percent on some Indian reservations. By holding hearings on the impact of legislation related to American Indians and Alaska Natives, Congress moved to rectify its prior decisions by passing self-determination and self-governance policies. As a result of such policies, AI/AN nations and villages have greater control over their lands and resources. They have made great strides toward reversing the economic blight that resulted from previous Federal policies, and have revived their unique cultures and nations. Congress must withstand pressure from those individuals and groups that call for back tracking to old AI/AN policies, such as termination and reduction of AI/AN sovereign rights. We must acknowledge and learn from our mistakes, and not repeat them in the future because AI/AN nations and people are relying upon our commitments. The United States Constitution recognizes that American Indian Nations are sovereign governments. Hundreds of treaties, the Supreme Court, the President, and the Congress have repeatedly affirmed that Indian nations retain their inherent powers of self-government. In addition, the U.S. Government is committed to a trustee relationship with the Indian nations. This trust relationship requires the Federal Government to exercise the highest degree of care with tribal and Indian lands and resources. Sacred lands, and ceremonies associated with those lands, are a necessary expression of AI/AN spirituality, and often are key to individual an collective wellness. This necessity is situated deep in the ancient history of these Indian nations and maintains a prominent place in the fact-based stories hand down from one generation to another. Since the coming of the Europeans to these shores in the late 14th century, these sacred lands have been subject to intrusion and disturbance as settlers laid claim to lands of the AI/AN people. In 1978, Congress passed the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, recognizing the necessity of upholding the protection of AI/AN spirituality within the ambit of the religious freedom guaranteed by the first amendment to the United States Constitution. Unfortunately, litigation in the courts since then to safeguard sacred lands, and the ceremonies associated with those lands, has for the most part been unsuccessful. Rather than safeguard sacred lands, these cases have upheld multiple intrusions upon them and maintained a history of subordination of AI/AN spirituality to the interests of dominating groups. Federal Government representatives, leaders of historic religions, and judiciary members must develop more tolerance and expand their definitions of what constitutes a proper sacred place. Culture and legal scholar, Davis Mayberry-Lewis, writes: American Indian religions consider the earth as sacred, whereas the secular culture that surrounds them considers the earth to be real estate. It is hard for the strong to give up their ingrained habit of overpowering the weak, but it is essential if we are to make multiethnic societies like our own work with a minimum of civility. Anthropologist Elizabeth Brandt states: The free practice of many Indian religions requires privacy and undisturbed access to culturally and religiously significant sites and their resources. It is irrevocably tied to specific places in the world which derive their power and sacred character from their natural undisturbed state. Ultimately, how free are we, really, if the first religions of our great country cannot be protected? I also ask you, what if, despite your objections to the contrary, your spiritual place was being bull dozed for economic activity or spiked for scaling purposes? How would you feel, what would you think and what would you do? Therefore I strongly support H.R. 2085, the Valley of Chiefs Native American Sacred Site Preservation Act, which would safeguard an area very sacred to a number of Indian tribes, and ask that my colleagues support this bill as well. I also call for additional Sacred Land legislation to be developed in consultation with Indian Country. Furthermore, the establishment of a governmentwide, effective, and comprehensive procedure that safeguards the loss of further AI/AN sacred lands must be enacted. We must move swiftly in conjunction with AI/AN nations before more sacred lands, such as Mt. Shasta and Medicine Lake of California, Devil's Tower, and Black Hills of South Dakota, to name a few, are further desecrated and damaged.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the congressional Native American Caucus, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2085, the Valley of Chiefs Native American Sacred Site Preservation Act, which would safeguard an area very sacred to a number of Indian tribes, and ask that my colleagues support this bill as well. In addition, I want to comment on the need to protect other threatened American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) sacred lands. Our many democratic forums establish an opportunity for discussions to take place to better understand the social, economic, legal and political complexity of AI/AN realities, before related legislation is brought to the House Floor for a vote. As Congressional history demonstrates, the decisions we make as Representatives can either positively or negatively impact AI/AN people, and their nations, tribes, bands, villages and communities. For example, between 1887 and 1934, the U.S. Government took over 90 million acres of land from American Indians without compensation-- including sacred lands. More recently, between 1945 and 1968, Congress decided that federal recognition and assistance to more than 100 tribes should be terminated. This termination policy created economic disaster for many American Indians, and their nations, resulting in millions of acres of valuable natural resource land being lost through tax forfeiture sales. This is a primary reason why AI/AN families have the highest poverty level of any group in the country, at a rate of 31 percent on some Indian reservations. By holding hearings on the impact of legislation related to American Indians and Alaska Natives, Congress moved to rectify its prior decisions by passing self-determination and self-governance policies. As a result of such policies, AI/AN nations and villages have greater control over their lands and resources. They have made great strides toward reversing the economic blight that resulted from previous federal policies, and have revived their unique cultures and nations. Congress must withstand pressure from those individuals and groups that call for back tracking to old AI/AN policies, such as termination and reduction of AI/AN sovereign rights. We must acknowledge and learn from our mistakes, and not repeat them in the future because AI/AN nations and people are relying upon our commitments. The United States Constitution recognizes that American Indian Nations are sovereign governments. Hundreds of treaties, the Supreme Court, the President and the Congress have repeatedly affirmed that Indian Nations retain their inherent powers of self-government. In addition, the United States Government is committed to a trustee relationship with the Indian Nations. This trust relationship requires the federal government to exercise the highest degree of care with tribal and Indian lands and resources. Sacred lands, and ceremonies associated with those lands, are a necessary expression of AI/AN spirituality, and often are key to individual and collective wellness. This necessity is situated deep in the ancient history of these Indian nations and maintains a prominent place in the fact-based stories handed down from one generation to another. Since the coming of the Europeans to these shores in the late 14th Century, these sacred lands have been subject to intrusions and disturbance as settlers laid claim to lands of the AI/AN peoples. In 1978, Congress passed the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, recognizing the necessity of upholding the protection of AI/AN spirituality within the ambit of the religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Unfortunately, litigation in the courts since then to safeguard sacred lands, and the ceremonies associated with those lands, has, for the most part been unsuccessful. Rather than safeguard sacred lands, these cases have upheld multiple intrusions upon them and maintained a history of subordination of AI/AN spirituality to the interests of dominating groups. Federal government representatives, leaders of historic religions and judiciary members must develop more tolerance and expand their definitions of what constitutes a proper sacred place. Culture and legal scholar, Davis Mayberry-Lewis, writes: ``American Indian religions consider the earth as sacred, whereas the secular culture that surrounds them considers the earth to be real estate. It is hard for the strong to give up their ingrained habit of overpowering the weak, but it is essential if we are to make multiethnic societies like our own work with a minimum of civility.'' Anthropologist Elizabeth Brandt states: ``The free practice of many Indian religions requires privacy and undisturbed access to culturally and religiously significant sites and their resources. It is irrevocably tied to specific places in the world which derive their power and sacred character from their natural undisturbed state.'' Ultimately, how free are we, really, if the first religions of our great country cannot be protected? Therefore I strongly support H.R. 2085, the Valley of Chiefs Native American Sacred Site Preservation Act, which would safeguard an area very sacred to a number of Indian tribes, and ask that my colleagues support this bill as well. I also call for additional Sacred Land legislation to be developed in consultation with the majority of AI/AN nations in the United States. Furthermore, the establishment of a government-wide, effective, and comprehensive procedure that safeguards the loss of further AI/AN sacred lands must be enacted. We must move swiftly in conjunction with AI/AN nations before more sacred lands, such as Mt. Shasta and Medicine Lake of California, Devil's Tower and Black Hills of South Dakota, to name a few, are further desecrated and damaged. I ask you, what if, despite your objections to the contrary, your spiritual place was being bull dozed for economic activity or spiked for scaling purposes? How would you feel, what would you think and what would you do? I ask you to support H.R. 2085 and the initiatives I have discussed related to safeguarding the loss of further AI/AN sacred lands.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the H.R. 2646, the motion to instruct conferees on the Farm Security Act to repeal restrictions against private financing of agricultural sales to Cuba. Doing business with Cuba means doing business with Castro, it is that simple. So long as Cuba's dictator maintains his stranglehold on every aspect of Cuban life, lifting any aspect of the embargo would mean subsidizing Castro. The truth is that Cuba can get food from almost anywhere in the world. However the Cuban Government chooses to ration the food that it does receive and even goes as far as to prohibit its citizens from producing their own. Under Castro, every aspect of the economy is controlled by the Cuban Government. In Cuba there is no such thing as free enterprise. By sending our products into Cuba, we are only giving Castro the symbolic victory and propaganda he craves. By sending our agriculture products into Cuba, we are only providing assistance to a dictator and a terrorist. The Cuban Government is characterized by its systematic trampling of civil rights and political freedom, the killing of civilians, the subhuman conditions of its prisons and by a legal system that perpetuates the violation of human rights. According to Amnesty International, no other country of Cuba's size has held so many political prisoners for so long under such inhuman circumstances of atrocity and terror. These atrocities are not some far off history of a generation ago. They are happening today, in jails closer to Miami than we are to my home in New Jersey. By lifting these sanctions with nothing in exchange from the Cuban Government--no free elections, no commitments on human rights, no civil liberties--we are betraying the very people that this embargo was designed to help. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2646 and to remain steadfast in their support for the Cuban people.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this week, we welcome a distinguished visitor to our nation's capital: the Honorable Demetris Christofias, President of the House of Representatives of the Republic of Cyprus. Mr. Christofias began his trip to the U.S. late last week with a stop in New York, where he paid tribute to those who lost their lives in the terrorist attacks on September 11th. Visiting Ground Zero, where the World Trade Center had stood, Mr. Christofias condemned all terrorist attacks, and reaffirmed Cyprus' support in the fight against terrorism. During his visit to Washington, Mr. Christofias will be meeting with Members of Congress, top Administration officials, other key policy makers, and leaders of the Cypriot-American community. As elected representatives who serve in this great Body, it is a privilege to receive visits from our counterparts serving in the legislative bodies of other countries--particularly when the visitor represents a country with which we enjoy very friendly relations, have so much in common and in which we have so many important interests. Mr. Speaker, Representative Demetris Christofias was elected President of the House of Representatives on June 7, 2001. Based on the 1960 Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus, the President of the House of Representatives performs the duties of the President of the Republic in the event of a temporary absence or incapacity of the President. He is also President of the Executive Committee on Selection, and President of the Executive Committees of the groups representing Cyprus in the Inter-parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. He is also a member of the National Council, a supreme advisory body to the President of the Republic. Representative Christofias was first elected as a member of the House of Representatives in 1991, and was subsequently re-elected in 1996 and 2001. He was born on August 29, 1946, in the village of Dhikomo of the district of Kyrenia, an area under military occupation by Turkey since 1974. From a very young age, he has been active in political and civic organizations in Cyprus. He now lives in Nicosia and is married to Elsie Chiratou. They have two daughters and a son. Mr. Speaker, the Republic of Cyprus is an important friend and partner of the United States. Our countries share a commitment to democracy, human rights, free markets and the ideal and practice of equal justice under law. The Republic of Cyprus also stands with the United States and the rest of the civilized world in the war against international terrorism. Within hours of the terrorist attacks of September 11, Cypriot leaders expressed their strong condemnation of the acts, their solidarity with the American people, and their commitment to working with the United States in the ongoing campaign against terrorism on many fronts. Since then, Cyprus has taken many substantive steps as part of the coalition against terrorism, including giving blanket clearances for U.S. military aircraft to fly over Cyprus and use its airports, sharing intelligence with and providing legal assistance to U.S. agencies, and increasing security at seaports, airports and the American Embassy in Cyprus's capital, Nicosia. Cyprus has also implemented UN Security Council Resolution 1373 to freeze bank accounts and other assets of terrorists and their supporters, ratified and implemented the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, and is conducting investigations to determine if individuals or organizations named in President Bush's Executive Order hold assets in Cyprus, with a goal toward freezing those assets. Mr. Speaker, the future for the Republic of Cyprus looks extremely bright. Cyprus is currently considered a leading candidate country to join the European Union in the EU's next round of enlargement. The United States has strongly supported Cyprus's EU bid. EU membership will bring significant benefits to both the Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot communities, including new economic opportunities, access to new markets, a freer exchange of goods and services, balanced and sustainable development as well as the free movement of persons, goods, and services and capital. But, regrettably, Mr. Speaker, despite its almost miraculous economic achievements, Cyprus must continue to endure the occupation of 37 percent of its territory by a hostile foreign power. On July 20, 1974, Turkey invaded Cyprus, and to this day continues to maintain an estimated 35,000 heavily armed troops. Nearly 200,000 Greek Cypriots, who fell victim to a policy of ethnic cleansing, were forcibly evicted from their homes and became refugees in their own country. Every year, on or about July 20, in what has become one of Congress's proudest traditions, Members of Congress rise to remember the anniversary of the Turkish invasion. Congress has also adopted Resolutions stating that the status quo in Cyprus is unacceptable, and calling for international efforts to resolve the Cyprus problem on the basis of international law. Administrations of both political parties have worked in support of the UN-sponsored peace process. In recent months, hopes have been raised that a just and durable solution to the Cyprus problem can be reached. The President of the Republic of Cyprus, Glafcos Clerides, has been holding direct talks with the Turkish Cypriot leader, Rauf Denktash, since the beginning of this year. The third round of these talks has resumed this month, with the UN Secretary General's Special Adviser for Cyprus overseeing the negotiations. I am confident that the leadership of the Republic of Cyprus will continue to negotiate in good faith until a comprehensive settlement is reached, as they have tried to do all along. I hope the Turkish Cypriot leadership will respond by putting aside its unreasonable and unacceptable demands, and negotiate in good faith. The United States has a significant security, economic and moral interest in seeing that a settlement is achieved. The U.S. also supports Cyprus's accession to the EU. Indeed, it is to be hoped that the ongoing EU accession process for Cyprus--which will continue to advance whether or not a comprehensive settlement is reached--will help to lead to a comprehensive settlement. Last year, a bipartisan Resolution was introduced in the House expressing the sense of Congress that security, reconciliation, and prosperity for all Cypriots can be best achieved within the context of membership in the European Union which will provide significant rights and obligations for all Cypriots, and for other purposes. That Resolution now has 73 co-sponsors, showing the strong support of this Body for Cyprus' accession to the EU. Mr. Speaker, I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in welcoming Representative Christofias to our capital and to our country.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the United States Life- Saving Service Heritage Act, legislation to celebrate one of the most inspiring periods in America's maritime history. This legislation would establish a comprehensive program to inventory, evaluate, document, and assist efforts to restore and preserve surviving historic lifesaving stations. I am pleased that my Jersey Shore colleague Representative Frank LoBiondo has joined me in this effort. The history of lifesaving in the United States dates back to 1785, when the Massachusetts Humane Society began building huts along the Massachusetts coast to aid shipwreck victims. These huts were later fitted with surfboats, beach-carts, and other lifesaving equipment. Beginning in 1847, the Federal government recognized the importance and necessity of lifesaving efforts when Congress provided a series of appropriations to establish lifesaving stations equipped to render assistance to shipwrecked mariners and their passengers. These stations were first established along the Atlantic coast with the assistance of Representative William Newell, who during the 31st and 39th Congresses represented some of the same areas of New Jersey that I represent today. Representative Newell's efforts contributed to the establishment of a network of lifesaving stations along the Jersey Shore from Sandy Hook to Cape May. In 1871, Congress approved the first appropriation for the Federal government to employ crews of lifesavers. On June 18, 1878, the ``Act to Organize the Life-Saving Service'' was enacted. In 1915 the Life-Saving Service merged with the Revenue Cutter Service to form the Coast Guard. At that time, there were over 275 lifesaving stations to aid shipwreck victims on the Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf, and Great Lakes coasts. The volunteer and professional lifesaving personnel who staffed these stations risked their lives to prevent shipwreck casualties. Winslow Homer immortalized these great heroes of the American coast in his painting The Life Line. Walt Whitman celebrated their inspiring actions in the following excerpt of his poem Patrolling Barnegat: Through cutting swirl and spray watchful and firm advancing, (That in the distance! Is that a wreck? Is the red signal flaring?) Slush and sand of the beach tireless till daylight wending, Steadily, slowly, through hoarse roar never remitting, Along the midnight edge by those milk-white combs careening, A group of dim, weird forms, struggling, the night confronting, That savage trinity warily watching. An outstanding example of this period survives today in my district. The historic Monmouth Beach lifesaving station, established in 1895, is a Duluth style station designed by the architect George Tolman. On one occasion, every member of the station's crew was awarded a gold lifesaving medal for rescuing victims of two shipwrecks on the same evening. Recently, this historic structure was slated for demolition to make way for a new parking lot for beachgoers. Fortunately, the entire community came together to save this important structure. However, much work needs to be done to preserve the station's history and the inspiring stories of those who served there. It is not certain exactly how many stations like the one in Monmouth Beach remain. Many surviving historic lifesaving stations are of rare architectural significance, but harsh coastal environments threaten them, rapid economic development in the coastal zone, neglect, and lack of resources for their preservation. The heroic actions of America's lifesavers deserve greater recognition, and their contributions to America's maritime and architectural history should be celebrated. That is why I have proposed the United States Life-Saving Service Heritage Act. This legislation would provide the resources necessary to inventory, document, and evaluate surviving lifesaving stations. It would also provide grant funding to assist efforts to protect and preserve these maritime treasures. The United States Life-Saving Service Heritage Act would authorize the National Park Service, through its National Maritime Initiative, to inventory, document, and evaluate surviving historic lifesaving stations. These activities would be conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Life-Saving Service Heritage Association, a Massachusetts based non-profit educational organization that works to protect and preserve America's lifesaving heritage. This inventory, documentation, and evaluation would be similar in nature to a study completed by the Park Service in 1994, on historic lighthouses. Under this legislation, the Park Service would serve as a clearinghouse of information on lifesaving station preservation efforts, which would greatly assist public and private efforts to protect these historic structures and the maritime heritage that they embody. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to celebrate one of the most heroic and inspiring periods in America's maritime history.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor this evening to discuss Pakistan's self-proclaimed President, General Pervez Musharraf's plan to hold a referendum in Pakistan on April 30 to extend his presidency for 5 years. Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed by the steps General Musharraf is taking to extend his military rule and to further bar democracy in Pakistan. In October of 1999, General Musharraf came to power in Pakistan when he overthrew the elected government of former Prime Minister Sharif. In June of 2001, 20 months following his coup, Musharraf declared himself the President of Pakistan. At that time, Musharraf claimed that his presidential declaration was an initial step towards promoting democracy in traditionally dictatorial Pakistan. But, Mr. Speaker, I felt that based on his past actions, including the dissolving of the national assembly, or parliament, and four provincial assemblies, the reality was just the opposite. We are faced with a similar situation today in that Musharraf is simply paying lip service to democratic rule by holding this referendum on April 30. Besides Musharraf's continued steps towards extending dictatorial rule in Pakistan, there are several other aspects of holding this referendum that I find problematic. From what I understand, a referendum to extend Musharraf's rule by 5 years is illegal and unconstitutional under Pakistan's constitution. Their constitution mandates that both houses of parliament must elect the President. In addition, after the 1999 coup, Musharraf was bound by the constitution to restore democracy in Pakistan by October of 2002, this year. But clearly these propositions were false. As a result of Musharraf's blatant disregard for constitutional law, there has been opposition to the referendum within Pakistan. The 15- party Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy, which includes the country's two main parties, has been vocal about Musharraf's unconstitutional means to remain President. In addition, there has been public backlash against the referendum plan from Pakistan's leading newspapers, major Islamic parties, and the 54-nation Commonwealth of Britain and its former colonies. The leaders of the opposition party in Pakistan attempted to hold a rally against the referendum, which led to the arrest of dozens of their leaders by the police. The arrest of these leaders caused major concern because not only is Musharraf proceeding with an unlawful referendum, but he is also barring leaders of the opposition party to publicly protest. Although a ban on rallies has been in effect in Pakistan to quell Islamic extremist rallies, it is unacceptable that Musharraf is allowing the ban on rallies to apply to a rally in opposition to his presidential referendum. Mr. Speaker, I would like to also discuss Pakistan's human rights record, which clearly exemplifies that stripping citizens of the right to protest against an unlawful referendum is just the tip of the iceberg. A recent report by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan indicated that respect for human rights in Pakistan is afforded to few and that women and children in particular experience tremendous violence and discrimination. These facts provide a glimpse of the social conditions in Pakistan. However, other human rights violations such as limited press and religious freedom, torture and killings by the police and lack of free and fair elections are also evidenced in the report. Although Musharraf has been an ally to the United States in the war against terrorism, we cannot forget that he is the dictatorial leader of Pakistan and that he is not in fact the duly elected President. The political, social, and economic situation in Pakistan is bleak. This fragile country can only be improved by a democratic leader who will represent the interests of Pakistani citizens. It is unsettling to think of the negative repercussions of 5 more years of rule under Musharraf, given the current majority of opposition and given the current lack of basic human rights afforded to Pakistanis.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the New Jersey State AFL-CIO in honoring three individuals who have demonstrated extraordinary leadership in labor relations. NJ Governor James McGreevey, AFL-CIO Political Director Steve Rosenthal, and PSE&G CEO Al Koeppe have dedicated their lives to ensuring that New Jersey's workers are provided fair compensation, benefits and safe working conditions. It is individuals like these who allow working families in the State of New Jersey to continue to thrive during these tough economic times. Governor McGreevey. As the mayor of Woodbridge, the Senator and Assemblyman for the 19th legislative district and now as our Governor, Jim McGreevey has been one of the best friends NJ labor has ever seen. Throughout his tenure in public service Jim McGreevey has been a persistent fighter for the rights of workers, their families, and the labor movement. While Governor McGreevey has a long list of accomplishments and accolades, none can surpass that of his first executive order as Governor. Before even moving into the Governor's mansion, Jim McGreevey made it one of his first official acts to declare that all large public construction jobs must use unionized labor. By requiring that all state funded large construction jobs enter into project labor agreements (PLAs), New Jersey is assured that all work is done by qualified individuals, who are receiving a fair wage and quality benefits. PLAs have long been proven an effective way to get work done in a timely fashion, without work stoppages. By making Project Labor Agreements one of his first official acts, Jim McGreevey once again proved his utmost commitment to the working men and women of our state. His outstanding record and commitment to working families should be applauded and viewed as a model for all public servants. I look forward to continuing work with our newly elected Governor in furthering the labor movement and the rights of all workers. Steve Rosenthal. As political director of the AFL-CIO, Steve Rosenthal has taken the labor fight to the political spectrum and has fought to ensure that the issues of utmost concern of working families are heard by the American political establishment. Steve has worked long and hard in making workers rights a focus of Congressional, State, County and Local races for office. Steve Rosenthal was appointed to the position of political director soon after John Sweeney was elected president of the AFL-CIO in 1995. Steve has been tasked to direct the AFL-CIO, and the greater labor movement's, political organization. He has been instrumental in recruiting pro-labor candidates, organizing national voter registration drives, and mobilizing their grassroots campaigns. Steve has been taking an active role in building a long term political infrastructure that not only elects officials that are supportive of labors issues but encourages union members to take active roles in all levels of government. I am also proud that Steve Rosenthal cut his teeth in our great State of New Jersey. Steve is a member of Communication Workers of America (CWA) Local 1032 and served as the New Jersey CWA Legislative/Political Coordinator. In these roles and currently as the national political director, Steve Rosenthal has truly provided an invaluable service to all working families in the state of New Jersey. Al Kolppe: For the past 13 years I have had the pleasure and honor to work with a businessman that epitomizes how our public utilities should do business. As the current CEO of Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G) and past president and CEO of Bell Atlantic-New Jersey, Al Koeppe has been a friend to working families and organized labor as a whole. In his official capacity at PSE&G and Bell Atlantic and as a former member of the NJ Commission on Higher Education, Al Koeppe works hard to ensure good relations with his workforce, providing workers quality benefits, the opportunity to organize and collectively bargain, and a quality work environment. In the mid-1990's, as a member of the NJ Commission on Higher Education and chairman of the commission's labor management committee, Al Koeppe's committee recommended that the state's nine colleges be required to collectively bargain with their more than 5,000 employees. This statewide bargaining would cover contract talks with classified clerical, security and maintenance workers who were members of the CWA and the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers. While this decision was not a popular one with the nine college presidents, it was hailed as a huge victory by the workers and their representative unions. Al also worked very closely with organized labor, including NJ AFL- CIO President Charles Wowkanech and members for the IBEW, in crafting New Jersey's Energy Deregulation law passed in the late 1990's. Al took significant steps in ensuring that not only consumer concerns were met but also the concerns of the men and women who work for our public utilities throughout the state. Al Koeppe has obviously demonstrated his leadership on behalf of working families in the state of New Jersey throughout his long and distinguished career. Business and industry should look to Mr. Koeppe as an example of how to conduct labor-management relations.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to the FoodBank of Monmouth and Ocean Counties in the 6th District of New Jersey. On Friday, February 22, the FoodBank formally celebrated the opening of its new 42,000 square feet warehouse facility at 3300 Route 66, Neptune Township. Member charities and invited guests toured the new facility. A dedication ceremony honored Arthur M. Goldberg, for whom the facility is named, for his generosity as a major contributor to the building campaign. Other guests included major contributors, member charities, volunteers and political dignitaries who have played important roles in enabling the FoodBank to build the facility. The FoodBank currently distributes over 2.5 million pounds of emergency food annually to more than 200 church and synagogue food pantries, soup kitchens, shelter for the homeless, shelter for abused women and children, day care programs for low-income children and homes for the elderly and disabled throughout Monmouth and Ocean counties. The new facility will enable the FoodBank to provide more food for those in need. With the additional space, new programs will also be started that impact on the root causes of hunger. These include a job skills program in culinary arts and community gardens that will help people to grow some of their own food. For continuing to make a difference in the community fighting hunger, the FoodBank of Monmouth and Ocean Counties warrants praise. Their new warehouse facility is a great step forward in their cause.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House will take up the Republican budget resolution. I am extremely disappointed with President Bush's budget on a number of fronts, but I am particularly outraged with the President's budget on Social Security, which is the issue I would like to discuss this afternoon. The Congressional Budget Office published a report on March 6 showing that the President's budget proposes to spend $1.6 trillion of the Social Security trust fund surplus over the next 10 years. Let me make it clear. The President is proposing to use Social Security surplus money; and let me add that $1.6 trillion is not just a dip into the surplus, it's a deep dip that will amount to two-thirds of the entire Social Security surplus. Not only is this unacceptable to me, this amounts to basically $261 billion more than the administration previously claimed. I would like to call the Bush administration the ``broken promise administration'' when it comes to many issues, but especially with regard to the issue of Social Security. If I remember correctly, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans last year promised to protect 100 percent of the Social Security surplus. Ironically, the White House Web site today features a quote from President Bush saying, ``We are going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus.'' The reality, of course, is that is not the case. If we take into account the President's optimistic projections, understatement of future costs and the ignorance of other costly elements, it becomes clear that the Bush budget spends the Social Security surplus over the next decade and beyond. What we are seeing today with the Bush administration is the most radical fiscal reversal in American history. Last year the Republicans inherited trillions of dollars in surplus over the previous Clinton administration. The budget that we are debating today indicates that in one 1 year there has been a decline in that surplus by $5 trillion. The obvious answer to this Republican fiscal irresponsibility is last year's $1.7 trillion tax cut and this year's proposed $674.8 billion tax cut. As a result of these Republican tax cuts primarily for the wealthy, the Bush budget rapidly deteriorates the Social Security surplus for day-to-day operations of the Federal Government. Democrats believe that the Social Security surplus should be rightfully rewarded to America's seniors. That is what it is all about. We made a promise to protect Social Security, not only because it was one of the most successful social programs, but also because we want to ensure that our seniors receive the benefits they deserve after years of hard work and years of paying into the system. Social Security we know provides an unparalleled safety net for the vast majority of America's seniors. For two-thirds of the elderly, Social Security is their major source of income. For one-third of the elderly, Social Security is virtually their only source of income. For these reasons and a lot of others, we as Democrats must do everything in our power to defeat the Republican budget. We must do this in an effort to protect and strengthen the Social Security program for the short and long term, and to keep our promise of allowing generations of retirees to live with independence and dignity. Mr. Speaker, I call upon my colleagues to defeat the Republican budget tomorrow for many reasons, but primarily because it spends the Social Security trust fund.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to Mrs. Margaret Erving, born in Iowa City. Mrs. Erving graduated from high school in Fort Dodge, Iowa, and was immediately inducted into the United States Air Force, completing her training at Lackland Air Force base in Texas. She spent 5 years in the Air Force, in which time she attended the United States Air Force Supply School in Denver, Colorado. She is a graduate of the College of New Jersey, having earned a bachelor of science degree with a major in sociology, and a minor in business administration. Mrs. Erving began her career at Fort Monmouth on February 2, 1980, and completed over 27 years of civilian/military service there. Her beginning position was that of a GS-3 Supply Clerk in the Directorate of Materiel Management. Since her debut in 1980, Mrs. Erving has served in several capacities including Supply, Quality Assurance, and Logistics positions. In February 1981 she was chosen to participate in the Quality Assurance Career Intern Program, and was promoted to the GS-1910-5 position in the Directorate of Materiel Management. That same year Mrs. Erving qualified and was promoted to the grade of GS-1910-9. In June 1983 she was promoted again to the grade of GS-11 in the Directorate of Quality Operations/Communications, Automatic Data Processing Section where she worked until 1985 at which time she was promoted to grade GS-12 Quality Assurance Specialist in the Directorate of Product Assurance and Test. In 1987 she was reassigned to the Communications Directorate MSE (Mobile Subscriber Equipment) branch, from which she is now retiring. In this position she traveled widely both in and out of the Continental United States, journeying to destinations such as Germany, France, England, Sweden, and Canada. Mrs. Erving's efforts have been outstanding, and she has, consequently, received numerous awards and accolades for her accomplishments and the Retrofit Program. Some of her awards include the Good Conduct Medal, sustained Superior Performance awards between the years 1995 and 2002. Certificates of Achievement in 1989 and 1995, Special Act Awards, and a letter of appreciation from Major General Robert I. Nabors, former Commanding General, United States Army, Communications-Electronics Command at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. In 1991, she was yet again promoted to the temporary position of GS-13. Mrs. Erving's external activities include being a life member of the National Council of Negro Women; member of the NAACP; member of the church of the Good Shepard, Willingboro, NJ; substitute school teacher, Willingboro, NJ public school system; a charter member of the women in military service; and vice-president and treasurer of Jonmar creations, an ethnic greeting card company founded and operated by her husband, John Erving, Jr. For continuing efforts to make a difference both in her own community and the world, Mrs. Margaret Erving deserves our praise and recognition.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of my colleagues to Reverend Ronald L. Owens residing in the Sixth District of New Jersey. He is celebrating his 25th year in the ministry. Reverend Owens is currently the Senior Pastor of the New Hope Baptist Church of Metuchen, New Jersey. On Friday, April 12, 2002, his church will recognize his illustrious career and dedication to Metuchen and surrounding communities. Reverend Owens graduated from Northeastern Bible College in Essex Falls. He also has earned a degree from the Virginia Union University in Richmond, Virginia. Presently, he is a candidate for the Doctorate in Ministry from Andersonville Baptist Seminary in Camille, Georgia. At the New Hope Baptist Church he has the unique honor of pastoring the church he attended in his youth. The church has grown to more than five hundred active members, with more than thirty active ministries serving the community. Reverend Owens has a noteworthy career. It includes serving as a member of the Board of Supervisors for Field Ministry at Princeton Theological Seminary and the Ad-Hoc Committee for Minority Recruitment for Robert Woods Medical School at Rutgers University. Additionally, he has acted as the president of the Metuchen/Edison Clergy Association and former Vice-Chairman of the Democratic Party of Middlesex County in the State of New Jersey. Lastly, he was President and CEO of the House of Hope Community Development Corporation of New Jersey. Outside of his career, he spends time with his adoring wife of thirty-years, Cheryl Owens, and his two daughters, Tracey and Kimberly. He also enjoys spending time with his four grandsons, Adam II, Joshua, Blair, Jr., and Brandon. Through his ministry he spreads the word of God and provides spiritual leadership. Now entering his twenty-fifth year of service, I would like to congratulate Reverend Ronald L. Owens on this momentous occasion.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, on March 25th, Greece celebrates its 181st year of independence. I am here tonight to praise a society that represents, in a historical sense, the origins of what we call Western culture, and, in a contemporary sense, one of the staunchest defenders of Western society and values. There are many of us in Congress, on both sides of the spectrum, who are staunchly committed to preserving and strengthening the ties between Greek and American people. I would particularly like to thank the co-chairs of the Hellenic Caucus, Congressman Bilirakis from Florida, and Congresswoman Maloney from New York for their fine leadership and their tireless efforts to strengthen the ties between our two countries. Just two years after the Greek people began the revolution that would lead to their freedom, one of our predecessors in this Chamber, Massachusetts Congressman Daniel Webster, referring to the 400 years during which the Greeks were ruled by the Ottoman Empire, observed, ``These Greek people, a people of intelligence, ingenuity, refinement, spirit, and enterprise, have been for centuries under the atrocious and unparalleled Tartarian barbarism that ever opposed the human race.'' The words Congressman Webster chose then to describe the Greek people--intelligence, ingenuity, refinement, spirit, and enterprise-- are as apt today as they have ever been. In the years since, Americans and Greeks have grown ever closer, bound by ties of strategic and military alliance, common values of democracy, individual freedom, human rights, and close personal friendship. The qualities exhibited by the nation of Greece, Madam Speaker, are a reflection of the strong character and values of its individual citizens. The United States has been greatly enriched as many sons and daughters of Greece made a new life in America. They, and their children and grandchildren, have enriched our country in countless ways, contributing to our cultural, professional, commercial, academic, and political life. The timeless values of Greek culture have endured for centuries, indeed for millennia. As Daniel Webster noted, 400 years of control by the Ottoman Empire could not overcome the Greek people's determination to be free. But, I regret to say, Madam Speaker, to this day, the Greek people must battle against oppression. For almost 27 years now, Greece has stood firm in its determination to bring freedom and independence to the illegally occupied nation of Cyprus. Given instability around the world, now is a good time to heal the wound in Cyprus that has poisoned the relations between Greece and Turkey for so many years. I am concerned, however, that Turkey is once again not negotiating in good faith. Over the years, I have become quite familiar with the Turkish side's well-known negotiation tactics. The Turkish side agrees to peace negotiations on the Cyprus problem only for the purpose of undermining them once they begin and then blames the Greek Cypriots for their failure. The time has come for Denktash to realize his demands for recognition of a separate state are not acceptable. The framework has already been laid by the United Nations Security Council's Resolutions establishing a bizonal, bicommunal federation with one single international personality and one single citizenship. Like their forefathers who were under the control of a hostile foreign power for four centuries, the Cypriot people hold fast in defiance of their Turkish aggressors with every confidence that they will again be a sovereign nation. They will. And the United States will be by their side in both the fight to secure that freedom and the celebration to mark the day when it finally arrives. I will continue to work with my colleagues here in Congress to ensure that the United States government remains on the right side of this issue--because there is no gray area when it comes to this conflict. In closing I want to congratulate the Greek people for 181 years of independence and thank them for their contributions to American life.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman raises a number of things I just want to comment on. First of all, when the gentleman talked about the debt limit, I thought it was very interesting that today pretty much Treasury Secretary O'Neill said that they are not going to bring up a vote on the debt limit because I think that the Republican leadership and the President do not want to show that they have to raise the debt limit; they are sort of hoping somehow it is going to go away, and they were suggesting that they were going to have to tap into Federal retiree funds, retirement funds, in order to postpone raising the debt limit, which is sort of a unique budget trick. But I guess we could go on doing that for a few months, and this way we sort of get away, maybe until after the election, and we get away with sort of showing that we have gone further into debt and we have to raise the debt limit. I do not know what the implications are for Federal retirees, but I am sure they are not too happy with the idea that their retirement funds are going to be played around with in this way in an effort to try to mask the fact that this debt limit has to be raised because the budget, the President's budget, raises the amount of debt. The other thing is the gentleman mentioned the commission, the President's Commission on Social Security; and, to his credit, when he was first elected, he set up this commission with the idea that we were going to have this full-fledged debate on the future of Social Security. But all of a sudden, as the commission met, and I guess there was some criticism of having to deal with that issue of Social Security that might be politically unwise, they came up with a myriad of proposals which, although they favor privatization, are not at all clear where they are going. I think one of the fears that a lot of the Democrats have is that even though we are hearing about debating Social Security and privatizing Social Security, that maybe what the Republican leadership really wants to do is postpone this whole thing until after the election so that they do not have to deal with it now. I agree that I think that is unfortunate, because this is not going to go away. The actions that the President and the Republican leadership are taking with the budget, with the deficit, with essentially spending Social Security trust funds, are making the situation with Social Security worse. So they cannot keep postponing the inevitable. The other thing that came up, which I do not know if we are going to get to it or not, but the gentleman certainly heard about it, all of us have, was that the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), proposed this idea of this certificate. We were going to vote on a resolution on the floor, which is a little different than a bill, a resolution that would authorize the printing of these certificates that would go out to everybody over 65 telling them that their Social Security benefits would be guaranteed for the rest of their life. Then we found out that it would cost like $40 million or $50 million that would come out of the trust fund as well. So again, I think that there is a lot of politics being played around here. We do not need these certificates. We need to have some action to actually deal with this issue in an effective way, other than just spending more of the trust fund and talking about privatization. The gentleman raised some of these issues, and I think that we kind of have to keep bringing it up because of our concern over where all of this is going.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I want to conclude this evening, but I just wanted to point out again that that is why so many of us on the Democratic side have been up here over the last couple of weeks, and we are going to continue to do it, because we will have the budget come up next week, and we really do want to have a debate on the substance of Social Security and where we are going with it and not just having this certificate that is going to be out there and giving people this idea that everything is fine, when it is not. So we are going to continue to be here. I just want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas, and point out that as Democrats, we do think this is a very important issue that needs to be openly debated; and we are going to be here every night, if necessary, to make the point over the next few weeks.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas, because I think that he really laid out very effectively what the Social Security program is all about and the problem that we face with solvency, which, of course, is still 30 years away, where we begin to not have enough money to pay out benefits. But if we start to do privatization, if we start to spend this trust fund, which, as you know, the budget that the Republicans, I guess, have come up with tonight that we are going to be voting on next week essentially spends a lot of the Social Security trust fund to pay for current expenses. But if I could, I wanted to just develop a couple of points that the gentleman made about the risk of privatization, the impact on women, the impact particularly on minorities, because these are serious concerns. One of the things particularly I thought was interesting that the gentleman talked about was the impact on women. I think a lot of people forget about the progressive method that is employed in Social Security. In other words, if you are paying, as the gentleman said earlier, a lot of people think, okay, I have this account where my money is put aside and that is the money that I get paid back. It does not work that way. The current workers are paying for the people who are now retired, and the fact of the matter is that a lot of the people, particularly low-wage earners that paid less into Social Security, are getting a lot more than they paid into it. That is particularly true about women. These are some statistics that we had, that women constitute the majority of elderly Social Security beneficiaries. I guess most people realize that about 60 percent of Social Security recipients over the age of 65 and 72 percent above the age of 85 are women. But because women, on average, earn less than men, it means they are counting upon the Social Security progressive benefit structure to ensure they have an adequate income in retirement. They are also less likely to be covered by an employer-sponsored pension plan, so they are even more dependent on Social Security, because they do not have a pension. Also women live longer than men, we know that, so they have to make their retirement savings stretch over a longer period of time. So if you did the kinds of privatization that the Republican leadership and the President are talking about, where you have these individual account balances, and the annual benefits they yield are a direct result of the deposit, the kind of thing the gentleman said people think we have with Social Security, but we do not. Because women earn less and spend less time in the work force, they would have less to deposit; but because they live longer in retirement, they would have to stretch out those payments from their accounts over more years. They would have to live on smaller benefits from smaller accounts, essentially. It is the very nature of Social Security, that it is not like an individual account and that you are actually getting, even though you may not have paid in as long and may not have paid as much, more as a benefit, because of the progressive nature of it. That particularly impacts women, because they tend to be lower-wage earners and because they live longer. The other thing with the risk, I am amazed, because I live in New Jersey, and I saw a statistic once that said in New Jersey people tend to invest in the stock market even more so than most other States, probably maybe because we are near Wall Street or whatever. It is probably true for New York as well, but definitely it is true for New Jersey. Until recently, I think, over the last 10, 12 years, people thought, why can I not take my money out and invest it in the stock market? I am going to get all kinds of returns on my investment. But if you look at the trend over the lifetime of, say, Social Security workers, those who are now retired, those who are over 65, there is no indication by investing in the stock market they would have benefited and would have a lot more money available today than if they were able to take their Social Security over that period of time and invest it in the stock market. I just want to give a few statistics. Basically, this is the information on the stock market that I thought was interesting. These are just some for the last couple of years. Between March 2000 and April 2001, basically the index fell by 424 points, or 28 percent. If Social Security had been privatized, a worker who had his or her individual account invested in a fund that mirrored the stock market and who retired in April 2001 would have 28 percent less to live on for the rest of his or her life. If you look over the last century, there were 15 years in the past century, 1908 to 1912, 1937 to 1939, 1965 through 1966 and 1968 through 1973 in which the real value of the stock market fell by more than 40 percent over the preceding decade. So anybody who tells you, oh, you know, if I had invested my money in an individual private account rather than Social Security, I would be much better off, you cannot show that. It is just not true. The other danger, of course, is that not everybody would necessarily invest in a mutual fund; they would pick and choose stocks, and there is a certain risk involved in that. Some people come back to me and say, Congressman Pallone, Why are you so worried about this, because, you know, everybody should be able to make their own choice? If somebody wants to take their Social Security and invest it in a private account, they lose their shirt in the stock market, that is their problem. You cannot be sort of paternalistic and worry about that person. My response is that is, very nice, but those people who lose their shirt in the stock market and do not have the retirement benefits, where are they going to go? They are going to come back to Congress and say, wait a minute, I invested my Social Security in the stock market. I lost my shirt. I am out on the street. What are you going to do to help me? The burden then comes back to the government again. So I just do not buy this idea that we are supposed to say okay, everybody makes their own decisions, and somehow this is the right thing to do ideologically. The bottom line is that Social Security is like an insurance pool, and everybody pools their resources and everybody benefits; and if you start taking out pieces and let people make their own decisions about their money, then you run the risk that a lot of them are not going to have their money and they are going to come back to the government and look for a bailout later. I do not know. I know a lot of arguments are used by our Republican colleagues to justify this privatization, but I do not think they are legitimate arguments if you look at the impact and if you seriously look at what might happen if that were to occur. The other thing, of course, that concerns me right now is that, as the gentleman knows, for the last few years we were basically balancing the budget, and we had a little bit of a surplus; and under the previous administration, under President Clinton, in the last few years of his administration, as the surplus grew, we were actually taking some of that surplus and we were investing it or using it to pay off the debt. The idea was that it would shore up the Social Security fund, and the outyears, the years, as the gentleman says, when Social Security would not have enough money to pay out, were getting further and further away. But now, with the budget that we are going to get from the Republican leadership and from the President, tonight I think it is already out and it will be voted on the floor next week, by spending the Social Security trust fund for current expenses unrelated to Social Security, that outyear when we are going to start to run out of money is going to get closer and closer; and privatization only aggravates it all the more if we were to move in that direction. So these are the kinds of things that obviously we worry about as Democrats. I think it is no surprise that we are seeing a lot of our colleagues come on the Floor and talk about these concerns, because it is a very scary thing for the average senior citizen, the average person receiving Social Security, and I think we have got to make the public understand what is happening with Social Security, what is happening with the trust fund, because I just do not think a lot of people are necessarily aware of it. I do not know if the gentleman finds that to be true at his town meetings or whatever. I think there is a lot of confusion on the part of the public about what is happening with Social Security, and some of these proposals that are out there in terms of where we are going to go and how we are going to make it solvent. I do not know if the gentleman wants to comment on that at all.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of that bill.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, to my great disappointment, President Bush, with the assistance of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and other Republicans, are promoting Social Security privatization. This includes replacing all or part of the current Social Security program with a system of individual retirement accounts which diverts funds from Social Security, and thus transfers investment risks from a pool of all workers to the individual. All of the evidence shows that plans that allow people to divert part of their payroll taxes into private accounts makes Social Security's financing problems worse, not better. If some of the funds coming into Social Security over the next 75 years are diverted away from the program and into private accounts, then even more funds will be needed to pay for future Social Security benefits. For example, if 2 percentage points of the current 12.4 percent payroll tax were diverted into private accounts, then the Social Security trust funds would be exhausted in 2024, 14 years earlier than is now expected. In short, if funds are diverted away from the Social Security program as it currently exists, the changes that are already needed to return Social Security to fiscal soundness will have to be more severe. Mr. Speaker, Congress really should strengthen and protect a guaranteed benefit for seniors, for survivors, and for those with disabilities. Today, individual benefits are dependable and determined by law, not the whims of the stock market. This guarantee must not be changed, and Social Security must not, under any circumstances, be privatized. Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight that the Republican budget uses Social Security to pay for large corporate tax breaks. For example, there are 136,559 American workers earning $30,000 a year who are paying 6.2 percent in FICA taxes. This money goes into the Social Security trust fund, from which the Republicans have now diverted, in the budget, $254 million in tax breaks to Enron; and that is Enron, I am talking about. Now, we know that Enron is bankrupt. Does that mean that the corporate tax break goes back to the trust fund where it belongs? No, not at all. It will go to other corporations instead. By using the Social Security trust fund to finance corporate tax breaks, Republicans are breaking the promise that the government makes to working families. Mr. Speaker, Social Security will continue to run an annual surplus this year and for the next 14 years. The program is solvent until 2037, at which point the trust fund will be exhausted and incoming revenues will meet only about three-quarters of benefit obligations. But privatization is sure to harm only the solvency of Social Security, which will mean that the current and future beneficiaries would face benefit cuts, survivors and the disabled would lose their secure pensions, and the retirement age would have to increase. Overall, the Social Security system that our seniors have depended on for over 65 years would quickly erode away. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the American people realize what the effect of this Republican privatization proposal means. It means that it is going to be more difficult for Social Security to remain solvent over a longer period of time, and with these kinds of benefit cuts and increases in the age for eligibility, all these things will result from this Republican privatization proposal that they have put out there. It is amazing to me that they continue to talk about it, they want to bring it up in committee, and they want to bring it to the floor. I think ultimately their goal, obviously, will be to destroy Social Security. I want to stress, as a Democrat, that Democrats are not going to stand for throwing away Social Security. The American people should not stand for it. Democrats are going to be talking about this crazy privatization proposal by the Republicans for many days because we do not want it to happen, and we feel it is very important that we shed light on what is really going on here and what the Republicans have in mind with privatizing Social Security.